AE911Truth is going on the road again, this time to the Grand Canyon State. AE911Truth founder Richard Gage, AIA, will be in the Phoenix area for three days in March, speaking publicly to groups of curious and concerned citizens and informing them about the explosive demolition of the Twin Towers and WTC Building 7 on September 11, 2001.

As part of the vital mission of AE911Truth, Richard Gage, AIA, is traveling to our great northern neighbor, Canada, on an eleven-stop speaking tour immediately following his tour of Arizona. Gage will be presenting the explosive 9/11 evidence to concerned citizens across Canada in March and April in conjunction with a campaign to submit a petition demanding an official review of the World Trade Center catastrophe to the Canadian Parliament.

This will be our third trip to Canada, and we have always been met with a good response. During our most recent trip, we joined David Ray Griffin and other esteemed 9/11 researchers at the Toronto Hearings.

Debunking the Real 9/11 Myths: Why Popular Mechanics Can’t Face up to Reality – Part 2

Plane Impacts, Fire Damage & Melted Steel

by AE911Truth Staff

Editor’s note: This is Part 2 of an extensive report by researcher Adam Taylor that exposes the fallacies and flaws in the arguments made by Popular Mechanics (PM) in the latest edition of Debunking 9/11 Myths. We encourage you to submit your own reviews of the book at Amazon.com and other places where it is sold.

(Quotes from Popular Mechanics’ book are shown in red and with page numbers.)

Plane Impacts and Fire Damage

PM next turns to the issue of the plane impacts and fire damage and their roles in the WTC event.

Editor’s note: The preliminary results of a new study of the red-gray chips, commissioned by Chris Mohr, a supporter of the official NIST reports about the destruction of the WTC skyscraper, and authored by Dr. James Millette, have recently been released. They seem to confirm that the composition of the red-gray chips does not match the formula for the primer paint used on the WTC steel structure. Look for a critique of Millette’s study in next month’s Blueprint newsletter.

Some defenders of the official 9/11 story have claimed that the red-gray chips of thermitic material identified in the WTC dust by chemist Dr. Niels Harrit, Ph.D., Dr Steven Jones, Ph.D., and other scientists are simply remnants of the rust-proofing primer paint that was applied to the steel structure of the WTC skyscrapers during their construction.

Bringing Truth to the Youth: AE911Truth University Outreach Repeats its Success at St. Mary’s College

by Hoda El Hamrouni

The explosive 9/11 evidence may be coming to a college near you. AE911Truth will be targeting the college speaking circuit in 2012, and there are plenty of ways you can help. Here is how one professor has made a difference for the last five years.

Unleash the Power of Your Computer – Become a Part of the AE911Truth Writing Team Expansion

by Eli Rika

The Writing Team at AE911Truth is growing as we gear up to make major announcements and complete milestone projects in 2012. There is a variety of new volunteer roles that need to be filled, so whether you are a blogger, a freelance journalist, or simply a concerned citizen who wants to get involved, you can make a meaningful contribution to our efforts. Here are some of the roles that you can fill:

News Writers: We receive breaking news here at AE911Truth about 9/11 evidence and events on a regular basis, and we have been so overwhelmed with these news items over the last few months that we need more writers to help us document and disseminate this critical information.

Trailer for the two-hr Research Edition of 9/11: Blueprint for Truth DVD.

Follow Us

We are a non–partisan association of architects, engineers, and affiliates.

Our work at AE911Truth is dedicated to the victims, families and all others throughout the world affected by the tragic events of September 11, 2001 and its aftermath.

Our mission is to research, compile, and disseminate scientific evidence relative to the destruction of the 3 WTC skyscrapers, calling for a truly open and independent investigation and supporting others in the pursuit of justice.

Learn more about us. Contact us if you have questions or comments.
Please forward and distribute widely!

From OP:
"Editor’s note: The preliminary results of a new study of the red-gray chips, commissioned by Chris Mohr, a supporter of the official NIST reports about the destruction of the WTC skyscraper, and authored by Dr. James Millette, have recently been released. They seem to confirm that the composition of the red-gray chips does not match the formula for the primer paint used on the WTC steel structure. Look for a critique of Millette’s study in next month’s Blueprint newsletter."

See? Millette confirmed the composition of the red-gray chips. This is what passes for "the truth" in the 9-11 "truth" movement.

AE911Truth is not going to put words into the mouths of Mohr/Millette about what they determined the red/gray chips are since they didn't give an answer themselves. They claimed not to know the source of these chips, but have determined they are not WTC primer paint (a previously used suggestion by JREF'ers and self-professed debunkers). AE will offer further critiques of their study, such as the fact that they did not use a DSC to replicate the ignition of red/gray chips. How can you have replication when you don't employ the most basic test of all??

1. Millette did in fact discover red/gray chips in WTC dust samples. Around 40 were extracted for testing.
2. Millette did determine that they weren't paint, thus debunking that claim.
3. Millette failed to explain their source, where they came from.
4. Millette did not use a DSC to test ignition, nor did he heat chips to the proper ignition temp.

Conclusions
The red/gray chips found in the WTC dust at four sites in New York City are consistent with a carbon steel coated with an epoxy resin that contains primarily iron oxide and kaolin clay pigments.

There is no evidence of individual elemental aluminum particles of any size in the red/gray chips, therefore the red layer of the red/gray chips is not thermite or nanothermite.

-- Millette red/gray chips study

--------------

What is Millette saying? You may not agree with him, but this is the section "Conclusion".

I see a little something conspicuously MISSING in the AE911Truth newsletter.

Are you going to join them in this infamy? You can't be serious. This is utterly PATHETIC.

This kind of attempt to frame the results to match a theory is very disturbing.

So let me get this straight, AE in their newsletter attempts to decree a sort of victory by saying that the chips weren't from paint. And yet the test still proves there was NO THERMITE OR NANOTHERMITE because there is no aluminum? Very deceptive. AE911truth, will you please correct this glaring error? Explain please because I know you all are thoughtful people and SOME people actually consider you a leader.

--We will be publishing a critique of the Millette paper in the near future.
--The reaction of the red-gray chips in the DSC proves they are thermitic
--We are free to agree with some points of Millette's paper and disagree with others.

Millette's conclusions will be addressed and critiqued by AE911Truth. Frankly there's a lot to say.

"The red/gray chips found in the WTC dust at four sites in New York City are consistent with a carbon steel coated with an epoxy resin that contains primarily iron oxide and KAOLIN clay pigments."

Gee...whatever could it be? His report also states...

"According to the Federation of Societies for Coatings Technology, KAOLIN (also known as aluminum silicate or china clay) is a platy or lamellar pigment that is used extensively as a pigment in many segments of the PAINT industry."

"Iron oxide pigments are also used extensively in PAINTS and coatings"

"Both kaolin and iron oxide pigments have been used in PAINTS and coatings for many years."

All you're doing with this dishonesty is to dig a deeper hole for yourself.

Now tell us how he is honest at the same time he is a fraud such as when he states....

"The composition of the red/gray chips found in this study (epoxy resin with iron oxide and kaolin pigments) does not match the formula for the primer paint used on iron column members in the World Trade Center towers (Table 1)."

And then pretend that this means he ruled out all paints in the world when he clearly didn't. You think this helps your claim?

I for one am thankful for the repeated success of groups like AE911Truth. Richard has done more for the cause than the handful of dramatists in this thread have ever done.

Going public with pertinent information will always afford the the dedicated among us a place the peanut gallery can't reach. Thank goodness for hard work, for tenacity, and for courage exemplified by Richard and his peers that others merely berate.

Fact is that Mohr/Millette did not duplicate the original test, hence their findings are in the very least incomplete. Bad science on their end, though fitting for the modus operandi of the official conspiracy theory believers.

If Millette has failed to, or fails to, ignite the material in a calorimeter, then Millette cannot be trusted. If memory serves, the original Harrit et al paper never claimed we had conventional thermite with grains of iron oxide mixed with grains of elemental aluminum. Instead, we had grains of iron oxide scattered amongst a crystalline matrix of material that contained aluminum in elemental form. That's not so different from what Millette has found, except that any aluminum in the "platy" matrix is in a silicate form (?). Chemically this may make all the difference in the world. And Millette may turn out to be right (that this is not a thermitic material), but he needs to ignite the stuff and see if it's energetic, or else his evaluation is highly suspect. The nature of the material is infinitely more important than its verbal definition.

If Millette demonstrates that what we have is merely a non-incendiary/non-explosive paint, then I hope Richard Gage will man up and take a closer look.

That said, I personally like Richard Gage, having sat twice with him in conversation in Seattle, the latter time for a few hours. My impression was that he was tenaciously dedicated to getting a new official study of the events of 9/11.

None of this is to suggest that, should Millette ignite the material and find it non-energetic, he should be taken as the final word.

***If the authors of the original ATM paper could take some of their material, and give a public demonstration of it igniting in a calorimeter, that would really be helpful.***

One should not have pre-ordained beliefs about this stuff--and I plead guilty to having vacillated between beliefs regarding 9/11 myself. One is justified, however, in harboring deep suspicions about the event, when it is viewed in context of the Neo-cons and their published goals (circa 2000) for "multiple simultaneous wars" in the Middle East. With something this large, it need not be "paranoid conspiracy theorizing" to suspect someone such as Millette of foul play. However, it is time for Harrit et al to stand up and show us the physical truth of what they published. This may sound hard, but is it too much to ask?

This is their chance to be heroes on a pretty large scale, and with one heck of a lot of vindication.

If they can't, I'm not going to make snide comments or laugh derisively. But I will, in that case, no longer listen to them.

You are so smug. Have you ever questioned authority? Does criticism make you sad? How about critical thinking? Do you get anxious when solving a puzzle?

These could be side-effects, if you are taking the new blue pill, which we like to call Authorigra. If you experience excessive cheer leading, for more than 4 hours, please call a real Truther and make snide remarks about people with any views different from your own. Then gulp down a bunch more Authorigra and practice the new goose step.

Unfortunately, some folks have an aberration: a compulsion to control the possessions, activities and lives of others. Often this compulsion is attempted by various methods such as enforcement or "making one guilty" or inhibiting others or covert friendliness or strained criticalness or whatever. This can make things disruptive for a group or for leaders.

I have to hand it to Richard Gage.
He took a road which many of us would never travel. He committed himself (pledged, bound himself to a cause) for an indefinitely long period of time when he founded AE911Truth. He is the founder.
His training background and experience was as an architect, not a public speaker nor a leader of a dynamic organization. Yet, he has made great inroads along these lines.
It is no easy task to lead a group. Decisions are always tough as a leader. Not every member of a group is always going to be cheerful about all the decisions made. Sometimes, some members can tax the time and efforts of the leader. Some members can drain the esprit. It takes a stalwart leader to remain firm to the course and commitment while yet keeping his compassion. I gotta hand it to Richard Gage. He has done what many of us could not or would not do.
Incredibly, Gage invites participation and feedback. I have seen Richard readily open to ideas and actions by others. Not many leaders invite so much input. Sometimes this open participation opens a can of worms. (As an aside: Many volunteers start in with enthusiastic participation, but later find their tenacity waning and then drop off the line. I have also seen some volunteers want to instigate and lead an action while everyone else becomes a "worker bee".)
Despite all the flak and troubles which bleed their way up to the top, Richard Gage keeps his cool. Pretty admirable quality in my opinion.

Anyway, I have to hand it to Richard Gage and the hard working folks at AE911Truth. I tip my hat.

Would have realized the error in speaking at an event along side Farracon.

A good leader would have responded to those in the 9/11 truth alarmed at him doing so.

A good leader would not frame the 9/11 truth movement as the only controlled demolition theory movement.

I think Gage and Kevin Ryan owe an apology for their lack of judgement for speaking along side such a notorious, dangerous, inflammatory group (the Nation of Islam led by Farracon just to be clear). And for both stating in some form that no muslim's were involved with 9/11.

If Gage were bound to a cause, he would not pigeon hole every single presentation and public appearance to one or two of his theories, but rather couple these theories with stated, known FACTS. He would learn from the failed 'leaders' and other activists in 9/11 truth who have painstakingly shown that 9/11 truth's strength is in diversity of factually based, historically sound facts, NOT theories.

If you consider Gage, a leader, well then I say as a leader and even representative, he has failed dismally and actually set us back.

And my comment (originally the first on this thread) asking about the NOI has been removed by Jkeogh, for those who did not notice. Justin, I don't hate you or for it, but why was it deemed 'offtopic?'

I did not think it was offtopic to ask about the AE newsletter and an AE event, so I assume there are other reasons. Yes, assume, because Justin has not responded to me. (non-response is becoming quite trendy with some)

Nonetheless, here are some words from Richard regarding the NOI event:

AE911TRUTH is a group of building engineers (and other engineers of course) and architects. Not political scientists, historians, policy analysts. This is why they stick to only controlled demolition issues. The newsletter links right to the report so I don't see where the problem is. If is that important they mention it, then lets see what the April issue shows.

The problem a know nothing avg schmo like me sees is that when something is critiqued around here it goes to levels it shouldn't go to. If one thinks the article should have mentioned more about Millette's, then say it, but leave out the "this passes for truth" and "they're just as bad as NIST" opinions to yourself, or post them on your personal blogs. Snide remarks that comment only to a person's intent lead nowhere since no one can prove another persons intent without extremely close and personal information that I feel quite safe in saying that no one here has. Maybe it's just me, but it seems lately that all people want to do here now is tear down those that paved the way thus far, some deservedly so I have no doubt, but often times it is uncalled for. (Forgive me if this too far off topic.)

C'mon people, let's move past all this. Its our own divisiveness that hurting us. No one researcher here knows all the facts and nor do they claim too. If the OCT is so demonstrably false, then lets demonstrate it as a single force. If I may borrow from LeftWright, is absolutely correct in stating that LOVE is the only way forward and it takes patience and tolerance, and mostly, it is unconditional. Thanks again everyone.

And I think you are confused, for the very people you claim are being divisive are actually the ones showing love and respect. I care about justice and my friends and people here who want justice. This is why I and others critique. It is a position of apathy and ambivalence to allow theories and deceptive behavior to go unchecked. Also, appealing to accomplishment ("those that paved the way thus far,") is a dangerous fallacy in an information war. What we have seen for years is people claiming to have paved the way, when really they jumped into someone else's moving vehicle, then started distracting the driver.

Critique is not division. If anything its to build a bridge. No one here is a cheer leader. None of the people being critical here were unwilling to accept the help of AE so long as AE was reasonable, critical, and thoughtful.

It is divisive to assert a false claim then attack those who critique it rather than respond directly to the critique. I just recently saw Kevin Ryan accuse people of embracing video fakery with no proof. When questioned and corrected about it he did not respond of apologize. This type of behavior defines divisive.

You have missed the point of the critiques here. It is not simply that people are upset that AE didn't talk about every single aspect of Milette's paper (the way you portray the critics here). It is that this newsletter skips over the most critical conclusion of the paper and actually gives the perception of the opposite of what the conclusion is. Is this a simple mistake AE911truth glossed over? Possibly, so if they are willing to correct it after it's pointed out, then we are talking quality valid sound research. If they are unwilling to adjust this, then the presentation of the paper in this newsletter is accurately described as deceptive. It is not closed minded to be critical. It is closed minded to say that everything everyone says and does should be accepted with love. It's even a bit divisive to claim one thing is the ONLY way forward , but I know what you meant. Idealism can filter aspects of the truth and in doing so omit the actual truth from outing.

A quote from this newsletter:"...Look for a critique of Millette’s study in next month’s Blueprint newsletter...."

It says it right there. Stay tuned for more.

Either some folks do not read or they just love to be snarking carpers.
Ha! These guys who STRAIN hard at criticalness in order to invalidate this newsletter and AE911Truth are laughing stocks to many of us. What a joke! These carpers are a riot. How silly!

I wrote quite a long response above that wasn't insulting like you are being here. I'm not holding my breathe for further critique. Now they AE911 will have to address the currently deceptive way in which they are presenting the papers results. I don't think anyone is happy to have to point out this divisive deceptive behavior.

I will add to those concerned in this thread that I also think it's sketchy that the NOI presentation wasn't mentioned. The lack of response from Gage and Ryan about them taking part in such a hideous event is quite telling. Real researchers are open to critique and reason. Gage and Ryan are acting just the opposite.

Ha! I am still laughing. After all, it is pretty silly to strain so very, very, very, very hard to be critical.
Extreme or laborious effort towards criticalness. Great exertion.
It is like baby curmudgeons.

Again, it says right here in the quote to stay tuned to the next newsletter. A quote from this newsletter: "...Look for a critique of Millette’s study in next month’s Blueprint newsletter...."

And I'll be a third person who pointed out the NOI event newsletter omission. However my comment was blocked from posting even though I tried to explain why pointing this out is relevant. After all this is a 'news' letter so perhaps recent news about AE911 Truth which actually shook the groups cred seems relevant? Comments like TomT's making fun of people working hard on critiques seem more unrelated to the topic then the NOI incident.